Quid pro Joe?
-
I think it would be a good idea for people to completely ignore any massive revelations concerning either candidate that mysteriously occur within a month of the election.
Common sense should indicate they're going to be bollocks.
Obviously, nobody ever posts massive revelations about their own guy, since they already know they're bollocks.
-
@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
Be thankful that Twitter’s policy slowed the spread of this potential “fake” then.
You mean like the Steele dossier which was touted for years?
Chuck Ross (Daily Caller) just posted a series of tweets on things that have been proven to be false. Twitter hasn't taken them down, and it's been over 17 hours:
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
Be thankful that Twitter’s policy slowed the spread of this potential “fake” then.
You mean like the Steele dossier which was touted for years?
Chuck Ross (Daily Caller) just posted a series of tweets on things that have been proven to be false. Twitter hasn't taken them down, and it's been over 17 hours:
The “Steele dossier” itself is real, nobody doctored up a document and says it’s created by Steele. This is different from the (allegedly) fabricated email that some unknown person put together and falsely attribute to people who never sent or received that email.
You would not complain about Twitter leaving posts and images of, say, old/historical research publications whose results have since been proven wrong — this is your Steele dossier analogy. Some anonymous person fabricating a document and claim that it’s “historical document” (e.g., faked Dead Sea Scroll, faked missing paintings/manuscripts from a long dead famous artist/composer), that’s an entirely different matter — this is your “fake email” analogy.
Even without that distinction, the argument that Twitter is a private business that is still free to regulate the content carried on their private platform in anyway they see fit (including the use of double standards or no standard at all) still stands.
-
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Kincaid said in Quid pro Joe?:
Beware the Deep Fake.
+1
Would like to see independent verification/confirmation.I saw a report today that claims that the Hunter Biden emails were hacked, and the "smoking gun" email was faked and inserted into the batch of actual emails.
That's going to be the Dem line.
Whether it's true or not.
-
@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:
Platforms.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."
It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.
In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.
Today, content, what you say, is restricted.
They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.
I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.
Justice Thomas disagrees with you.
-
@Axtremus said in Quid pro Joe?:
@George-K said in Quid pro Joe?:
@Jolly said in Quid pro Joe?:
Platforms.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As Ax and others have said, "If you don't like what Facebook and Twitter are doing, establish your own platform."
It's a nice concept, but these two behemoths are well-established, and everyone uses them. They are de-facto platforms, and they hold absolute censorship power over those who post on those platforms.
In the early 20th century, there were monopolies which controlled communications via copper wires. They controlled access, but not content.
Today, content, what you say, is restricted.
They are private businesses. It’s pitiful to see “conservatives” like @Jolly who argued that a cake baker should be allowed to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex wedding now wants to deny other private businesses the right to refuse publishing/replicating specific contents using their private platforms. The likes of Twitter and Facebook don’t owe you shit.
I am sympathetic to anti-monopoly arguments to break these behemoths into separate, smaller businesses. You are welcome to take your media consummation business elsewhere. You are welcome to build competing businesses. But I have no sympathy for giving you power to dictate how other private businesses should decide what opinions to publish/distribute on their platform.
You never cease to amaze me at just how stupid you are.
-
Meanwhile, from the Post's owner:
-
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
-
@jon-nyc I thought this was funny: 555555
QUOTE
In response to an email inquiry for this report asking him if he believes Biden will win in a landslide and his thoughts on Trump’s handling of coronavirus, Murdoch responded, “No comment except I’ve never called Trump an idiot,”
UNQUOTE -
-
@taiwan_girl said in Quid pro Joe?:
I think that @Axtremus brings up a good point, even if he is looking at two extreme cases - the small baker and a large corp.
But I think that the question is a good one - at what point does a private company start losing its "privateness".
I dont know the history of utilities in the US, but I think that would be a good similar example.
In many countries, the utilities are national. In the US, they are (I believe) all private companies, but have strict rules from the government that they must follow (how high a price they can charge, what they can/cannot do, etc.).
If anybody knows the history, what "criteria" were used to put them under the government rules?
Public service.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly Makes sense. If Facebook, Twitter, etc can be agreed that they are doing a public service, then maybe they should be under government rules.
If I were on there side, I would be asking for something in return. For the utilities, what is the benefit that they get? No competition? Guaranteed pricing? Something else?
